It's called "competition" for a reason. Companies like Microsoft and Sony want exclusives to attract consumers. You can't have every system with the exact same line-up of games.

In capitalism, the consumer is NOT the only thing that matters in general. Companies will not always bend over backwards to please just the consumer

I never said I had a problem with Sony or Microsoft buying exclusives (though I'd prefer they used Nintendo's Bayonetta 2 method). The developer is the one who is frustrating. They made a promise to Wii U fans (a promise, I realize that isn't a legally bound agreement) when they confirmed it and they broke the promise. Yes, I am fully aware they CAN do this, but it's a crappy thing to do.

Dude, indies are trying to support their families. They don't have the luxury of doing what you are suggesting. They have to make ends meet.

Currently playing: Destiny, Atelier: Alchemists of the Dusk Sky -Escha and Logy, and Sam & Max: Beyond Time and Space
Playing soon: Ratchet and Clank HD Collection
"We're up against a hairy, bloated, pagan god… Santa Clause!" -Sam & Max: Beyond Time and Space

@WaLzGi Speaking of high horse you sure like to give one of your 'facts of life' speeches to anyone who seems entitled to you or is upset about anything, It's hardly unreasonable to be a little annoyed when a developer breaks a promise (and this wasn't broken because they didn't have the money/ability, either).

@Jaz007 They made nearly double their kickstarter goal and got over $1.5 million. Seems like they had enough to fulfill their promises.

@Jaz007 That article doesn't have the whole dev quote. EDIT: https://www.facebook.com/RedThreadGames/posts/495723240509125@WaLzgi I have no interest in this game, I just posted about it because I thought it was pertinent to the thread and people would be interested. I never even stated my opinion on the situation until you stated yours (the "not a legal contract" thing). Then me saying it was a "anti-consumer" somehow was entitled? I never meant to have a stance on it, I was just posting because it was relevant. By no means do I feel entitled to this game.

@WaLzgi Thank you for explaining it to @Jaz007 on my behalf. I don't know either my wording was awful or confusing, but it seems like you are the only one who seemed to get my point. #shakes hand

@Beetlejuice Irrelevant to my point. I was talking about the consoles not the rationale behind the developer's decision to make cross-gen games.

I don't know about you guys, but if I really want to play a game, I'll just get the console that the game is on instead of staying upset and throwing tantrums. I've bought most of my game consoles solely for 1~3 games that was exclusive on it.

So it's a timed exclusive and it's coming to the 360? Which means it will come to the PS3 as well? Haha man this 8th generation has been a freaking big colossal joke. Love it or hate it, the Wii U is the only REAL 8th generation console so far. The PS4 and Xbox are just expensive living room ornaments with 99.99% of the games you can play on the 7th gen.

Before fanboys go "oh, but graphix!", well you can graphix my sorry foot.

@WaLzgi Thank you for explaining it to @Jaz007 on my behalf. I don't know either my wording was awful or confusing, but it seems like you are the only one who seemed to get my point. #shakes hand

I understand your point, but Wii U would have just as many 7th Gen games that are desirable if it got good Third-Party support. Your point simply doesn't make sense, and there a number of released and upcoming 8th gen only games for PS4 (and XBone).

@Jaz007 That article doesn't have the whole dev quote. EDIT: https://www.facebook.com/RedThreadGames/posts/495723240509125@WaLzgi I have no interest in this game, I just posted about it because I thought it was pertinent to the thread and people would be interested. I never even stated my opinion on the situation until you stated yours (the "not a legal contract" thing). Then me saying it was a "anti-consumer" somehow was entitled? I never meant to have a stance on it, I was just posting because it was relevant. By no means do I feel entitled to this game.

When did this "entitled" thing start in the gaming community? (I think it was the Mass Effect 3 fiasco that popularized it but I could be wrong)

Every time you say something about a company and people people don't like it, you have 5 people down your throat claiming "entitlement" just as an automatic response. How does criticizing a company mean you feel "entitled"?

@WaLzgi Thank you for explaining it to @Jaz007 on my behalf. I don't know either my wording was awful or confusing, but it seems like you are the only one who seemed to get my point. #shakes hand

I understand your point, but Wii U would have just as many 7th Gen games that are desirable if it got good Third-Party support. Your point simply doesn't make sense, and there a number of released and upcoming 8th gen only games for PS4 (and XBone).

It depends. Games like Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite didn't even do well on Xbox 360 or PS3. It makes 0 sense as to why they would try and get certain games onto Wii U that didn't even do well on 7th gen. People ACTUALLY complained about Wii U not getting the PS Vita Assassin's Creed, Dead Island Riptide, etc.

Some games did horrible without the Wii U involved, so why would they involve Wii U with that mess?

@WaLzgi Thank you for explaining it to @Jaz007 on my behalf. I don't know either my wording was awful or confusing, but it seems like you are the only one who seemed to get my point. #shakes hand

I understand your point, but Wii U would have just as many 7th Gen games that are desirable if it got good Third-Party support. Your point simply doesn't make sense, and there a number of released and upcoming 8th gen only games for PS4 (and XBone).

It depends. Games like Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite didn't even do well on Xbox 360 or PS3. It makes 0 sense as to why they would try and get certain games onto Wii U that didn't even do well on 7th gen. People ACTUALLY complained about Wii U not getting the PS Vita Assassin's Creed, Dead Island Riptide, etc.

Some games did horrible without the Wii U involved, so why would they involve Wii U with that mess?

That had absolutely nothing to do with what I said, and I'm pretty sure Infinite was a sucess.

Currently playing: Destiny, Atelier: Alchemists of the Dusk Sky -Escha and Logy, and Sam & Max: Beyond Time and Space
Playing soon: Ratchet and Clank HD Collection
"We're up against a hairy, bloated, pagan god… Santa Clause!" -Sam & Max: Beyond Time and Space

@WaLzgi Thank you for explaining it to @Jaz007 on my behalf. I don't know either my wording was awful or confusing, but it seems like you are the only one who seemed to get my point. #shakes hand

I understand your point, but Wii U would have just as many 7th Gen games that are desirable if it got good Third-Party support. Your point simply doesn't make sense, and there a number of released and upcoming 8th gen only games for PS4 (and XBone).

It depends. Games like Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite didn't even do well on Xbox 360 or PS3. It makes 0 sense as to why they would try and get certain games onto Wii U that didn't even do well on 7th gen. People ACTUALLY complained about Wii U not getting the PS Vita Assassin's Creed, Dead Island Riptide, etc.

Some games did horrible without the Wii U involved, so why would they involve Wii U with that mess?

That had absolutely nothing to do with what I said, and I'm pretty sure Infinite was a sucess.

Yes it does. You just said Wii U could have some "desirable" 7th gen games if it had good 3rd party support. Alot of 7th gen games were starting to dwindle, either buy not being of high quality anymore or just selling poorly, so they had to take the loss and move on. 3rd parties were already doing poorly on 7th gen with alot of games, so it makes 0 sense why they would push that further.

Infinite wasn't a success, but it wasn't a failure, really. I think it sold enough to break even, but not much more than that. If Bioshock Infinite was a success, we would probably have an Xbox One and PS4 version by now, like GTA V, but they aren't going to risk anything that has to do with that game, except the iPad port of the first game from like 2007.

When did this "entitled" thing start in the gaming community? (I think it was the Mass Effect 3 fiasco that popularized it but I could be wrong)

Every time you say something about a company and people people don't like it, you have 5 people down your throat claiming "entitlement" just as an automatic response. How does criticizing a company mean you feel "entitled"?

Entitlement has existed long before any of us. In terms of gaming, I'd say it's become very rampant starting this past generation. Companies make decisions, some gamers get upset, and a handful among those claim that they deserve better. In some cases they can be right, but in others they often go too far.

The best example is probably the Club Nintendo reaction. Some gamers post that they spent over $500 on games, so they somehow deserve more complimentary stuff. What they often don't mention is how said $500 was spent on a product that they received, but somehow they expected to be treated better in a complimentary program they didn't actually pay for.

In most cases however, frustration is stemmed at companies that make decisions that gamers in general do not like. A simple "I do not agree" "I do not like this" or "I do not support this" or some variant is a reasonable reaction, but "OMG, I've been a fan for 40 years and I deserve better." or "why is everyone anti-consumer?" or some exaggeration beyond simple joking is not as reasonable. It's no secret that most people in general often put themselves in the center of their opinion, but it's become more of a trend on the internet lately. However, everyone needs to realize that companies do not put you in the center alone. They have investors, developers, publishers, etc. to also please, and lastly they want money. And yet some gamers want to live in a world where all decisions will please them. Is this reasonable? Is this entitlement? Honestly, it's a case-by-case and post-by-post conclusion.

When did this "entitled" thing start in the gaming community? (I think it was the Mass Effect 3 fiasco that popularized it but I could be wrong)

Every time you say something about a company and people people don't like it, you have 5 people down your throat claiming "entitlement" just as an automatic response. How does criticizing a company mean you feel "entitled"?

Entitlement has existed long before any of us. In terms of gaming, I'd say it's become very rampant starting this past generation. Companies make decisions, some gamers get upset, and a handful among those claim that they deserve better. In some cases they can be right, but in others they often go too far.

The best example is probably the Club Nintendo reaction. Some gamers post that they spent over $500 on games, so they somehow deserve more complimentary stuff. What they often don't mention is how said $500 was spent on a product that they received, but somehow they expected to be treated better in a complimentary program they didn't actually pay for.

In most cases however, frustration is stemmed at companies that make decisions that gamers in general do not like. A simple "I do not agree" "I do not like this" or "I do not support this" or some variant is a reasonable reaction, but "OMG, I've been a fan for 40 years and I deserve better." or "why is everyone anti-consumer?" or some exaggeration beyond simple joking is not as reasonable. It's no secret that most people in general often put themselves in the center of their opinion, but it's become more of a trend on the internet lately. However, everyone needs to realize that companies do not put you in the center alone. They have investors, developers, publishers, etc. to also please, and lastly they want money. And yet some gamers want to live in a world where all decisions will please them. Is this reasonable? Is this entitlement? Honestly, it's a case-by-case and post-by-post conclusion.

Entitlement has always existed, rampantly accusing people of it has only come into play fairly recently in the gaming community. 99% of the time all I see is somebody criticizing a company's decisions, and then all of the defenders jump to accuse "entitlement". I don't even understand how "entitled" is even an insult or negative term.

If gamers don't like what a company is doing, why can't they call them out on it? I don't see how that's gamers feeling entitled. If somebody is "entitled", to me that would entail somebody actually claiming that they are, in fact, entitled to something, rather than just having expected to be treated better by company X, Y, or Z.

It really depends on the case. Yes, even the naysayers will go overboard with terms like "entitlement", but the internet does that with just about every argument. Remember when terms like "boycott" meant something? Now it is so overused and misused that no one really takes it seriously.

Just to name some examples:

-EA decided that SimCity should be always online...with little reason. Consumers buy the game and it doesn't work for the first few days. Are they entitled to an apology? Yes. In this case, they bought a product that didn't work, and even in the corporate world, making a product that backfired is always a bad idea. Are they entitled to free stuff? Maybe, if the company feels like they deserve something.

-Aliens: Colonial Marines was notorious for false advertising and fooling its consumers. Are said consumers entitled to a good product, apology, etc.? To an extent, yes. The industry is notorious for shoving pre-orders down consumers' throats that consumers are used to pre-ordering them and buying day one. With this said, Sega and Gearbox are responsible for all advertising on said product, and such companies who falsely advertise their games are responsible for the backlash that they got. This is also a company that consumers trusted, and that trust was broken. The consumers are not entirely at fault here, so backlash is necessary and entitlement is reasonable. In terms of entitlement, the consumers that trusted the company deserve the product they were promised for a while. (On a side note, I don't buy this crap that Sega isn't responsible)

-Dreamfall Chapters (title?) was recently funded for a PC/Linux version. A Wii U version was promised without any direct quotes or confirmation from the developer itself. Said developer then struck a deal with Sony to make it exclusively for the PS4 (consoles only, not PC). Wii U fans were upset about this and voiced their opinion. Is it reasonable to be upset? Sure, you can be upset about any decision. Is it reasonable to be entitled to a version that was "promised"? No, in this case the developer itself never claimed to have made a promise, and even if they did, plans change and the original Kickstarter didn't even mention a Wii U version. This is probably a good example of consumers not being in the direct center of decisions unless the consumer funded said decision (Kickstarter).

-Kickstarter is a tough nut to crack in general. The extent of entitlement I'm willing to claim to be reasonable is what is directly promised on the front page of said project. However, there is the risk of certain plans not working out or something else working better. Despite popular belief to the contrary though, funded projects must be finished as promised or the developers can face a lawsuit from Kickstarter (terms and conditions).

The best way to put this is entitlement is different depending on the situation.